Slashdot Mirror
International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming
mdsolar writes "An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace. The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors. The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound."
This comes alongside news of research into one of those short-term factors: higher than average rainfall over Australia. "Three atmospheric patterns came together above the Indian and Pacific Oceans in 2010 and 2011. When they did, they drove so much precipitation over Australia that the world's ocean levels dropped measurably." According to Phys.org, "A rare combination of two other semi-cyclic climate modes came together to drive such large amounts of rain over Australia that the continent, on average, received almost one foot (300 millimeters) of rain more than average. ... Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
Is it just me or is it getting hot in here?
Soon, there will be citrus groves and palm trees growing along the Lake Superior coast! Get in on this once-in-a-species-lifetime investment opportunity now!
sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century
- Only governments have the power to change this.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably won't be alive by the end of the century.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he is rich enough to move his beach mansion three feet higher.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably doesn't give a fuck about what happens to those who aren't.
DENY!
Are we on 'Yes the globe is warming, and humans are contributing, but it's too expensive/late to do something.' yet, or are we still on 'Humans might be contributing, but it's mostly natural'?
But people deny the obvious, like "There is no global warming" or "Islam is the religion of peace"
...Is that the weather here in the UK has been particularly mental this year. The coldest first half I can ever remember, followed by a month or 2 of tropical weather including afternoon downpours like a lake is dropping on your head. Something aint right, that's for sure.
Those organizations with the power to do something are steadfastly pretending the problem doesn't exist.
On the upside, the Great Lakes region where I live is likely to become prime real estate, because it will be (A) not underwater, (B) well-supplied with fresh water, (C) relatively safe from hurricanes, (D) not on fire, (E) not a prime tornado target, and (F) less cold.
I am officially gone from
... is compulsory reading to put all climate claims in perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(2007_book)
Bottom line: we do not know enough about the workings of the climate to even pretend we understand what is happening and why, let alone to believe that we can come up with a 'solution'. We can just do what our species does best: adapt.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I wish that a similar amount of scientific effort would go into deciding what (if anything) to do about it.
Instead there is a rush to reduce greenhouse gases, without any scientific or economic analysis to ascertain whether this is the optimal response.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
mdsolar and take your volvo with you.
How many vehicles have headlights that are always on?
Only individuals have the power to do anything.
Regardless of the purported effect on climate, we, as individuals, should be using all our resources as efficiently as possible.
Do you hate fossil fuels? Then why do you own an SUV, walk so little, and consume plastic in such abundance?
Do you hate coal-fired power plants/nuclear plants? Then why do you have so many electronic devices, an airconditioner permanently on, and a swimming pool in your backyard?
Do you hate the cutting of forests? Then why do you photocopy everything, print everything, buy a newly built house, and lovingly wrap every Christmas present?
No, the solution is not government or big money. It is bottom up. And frankly, look around you and the evidence is clear: neither you nor your family nor your friends nor your community ... care enough to change.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
sudo make me a sandwich
Unfortunately when anyone even proposes research into another response - geo-engineering, perhaps - it's branded apocalyptic climate alarmism and shouted down. As long as there's a well-funded lobby arguing that the problem doesn't exist, it's going to be an uphill battle to even test alternatives, much less actually apply them.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The empirical evidence does not support your claim.
Have you tried to walk in a US city lately? Even use public transport in one? The barrier to reducing vehicle use for the individual is enormous, so nobody can do it. Yet if everyone did it, it would suddenly become trivial.
Sometimes collective action is the only way to get over a hump.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It can't be true. The Republican shills on Fox News told me that global warming is fake, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Obama is a muslim and not a U.S. citizen, universal health care is a bad, bad thing, rich people pay too much taxes, and that there is no money for evil, commie social welfare programs because poor people are just entitled leeches and they smell bad too, and anyway, we have to invest more hundreds of billions into Northrop Grumman to build more shiny Stealth Fighters with.
I need to go buy a rifle in the convenience store to protect me and my family from these crazy liberal, monkey-offspringed disinformationalists. God help us!
You are parroting someone here.
Methane dissipates faster than CO2. A matter of years.
Water vapor even quicker. Days or hours. The effect is much less.
This is a point brought up time after time and the reasoning its cared about less hasn't changed.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
This is mostly incorrect. Sure, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but its residence time is nothing. Moreover, greenhouse gases are regulated on an equivalency basis, as "CO2e", where each is given a weighted impact. So, methane has a factor of 310 applied to its emissions. The same is true for N2O as well as HFCs / CFCs; those factors are in the ten-to-hundreds of thousands. These actually persist in the atmosphere, hence the reason for their high factors.
Troll harder next time. All of this is available on Wikipedia if you bothered 10 seconds to look.
Chill out. It's GOD's plan. Everything happens for a reason.
Instead there is a rush to reduce greenhouse gases, without any scientific or economic analysis to ascertain whether this is the optimal response.
I can understand the desire for a scientific analysis to ensure that's the best course of action (but, um, that's basically been done - we KNOW that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere heats the planet faster so reducing our CO2 emissions will help reducing the heat - pretty basic logic there) but, as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions versus increasing the temperature of our planet, radically disrupting weather systems, changing entire ecologies and flooding coastal regions around the world? Sorry, but the economic impact on the oil companies who have a vested interest in dragging this debate out as long as possible are so far down on my list of concerns. Fuck 'em, quite frankly.
Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
I am TIRED of hearing these arguments. If you think that global warming is a serious issue, and do nothing, then you get told that you do not put your money where your mouth is. If you do something, like any good capitalist, then it is all about profiteering. It's like saying Apple is awesome! But don't trust me, because I bought Apple stock, and so clearly I'm biased....
Actually, methane is an important area of discussion, in particular with a view to the impact of agriculture (cows) on the climate.
I'm not sure what control we have over our water vapour production, though.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We are still learning about the climate; we know enough, probably enough to say that pumping CO2 into the air is not a good idea and is likely the cause of climate change, but not enough to consider all the options and determing a geoengineering fix yet. But, people _are_ working on it.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
For what it's worth, I think geoengineering is a terrible way to solve the problem right now - like you point out, it has a low probability of a very, very bad outcome - but it's hard to engage in any discussion of, say, social solutions, when even the idea of billing someone for their CO2 output is considered utterly unacceptable.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
scientists can calculate the forcing effect of greenhouse gases with certainty. The IPCC convinces people of that (which should be easy since it's true). Then they switch from talk of forcing to talk of feedback which is what "is going to kill us". There is no certainty of feedback and they don't make a significant claim of certainty but they fail to point out that they've made the switch, so people believe that feedback is also certain.
If feedback is so deadly, we need to be talking much more about soot, aerosols, urbanization (not urban heat islands), deforestation, greenhouse gasses other than CO2 and other man-made causes of warming (pro-AWG scientists are no longer denying these and they add up to more warming than CO2). We also need to worry about potential heating of the sun or other natural causes even if we don't expect them because, if feedback is what the models say, ANY cause of warming will kill us and there has been warming before without man-made reasons.
As someone working bottom up, and who drives maybe 2 times a month, this argument is weak, and ignores the basic social structures that have evolved around the implicit incentives to engage in the tragedy of the commons.
Anyone who is concerned with actual evidence and who trusts the scientific opinions of the vast majority of experts already believes in man-made climate change.
Those who don't will continue to keep their eyes shut, ears plugged, singing "la la la" and reciting the same tired old arguments, facts be damned. Just like nothing happened.
NASA does not agree with you. They seem to believe that water vapor is a "major player in climate change".
sudo make me a sandwich
Can someone point me to the sums? I'd hate this to be another case of wobbly old expert opinion being touted as something more concrete.
...because it acts as a major positive feedback mechanism for warming caused by CO2:
heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Next time you want to argue that we have an excessive focus on CO2 as a gas, don't use a NASA study that argues that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Microsoft cites near certainty on superiority of Microsoft products.
Creationists cite near certainly on validity of creation science.
Etc.
The whole purpose of the international climate panel is to drum out hysteria about climate change. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
Methane is not discussed because it is not politically convenient. It is easier to demonize some power company burning coal making EVIL profits than it is to demonize some rancher in New Mexico whose family has been raising cattle on that land for 150 years and 100% depend on raising cattle to support themselves and their families. Now, if the same man-made global warming crowd had stock or patents in the fields of lab-grown beef or genetically modified cows with reduced methane emissions, they would be clamoring for the end of cattle farming.
sudo make me a sandwich
How many times do we have to tell you? Never go full retard.
Did you notice the "=>" sign? That means greater than or equal too. You have proven my point, by saying that water vapor can double the climate warming caused by CO2. Water vapor is a catalyst to global warming. But I do not see the AGW crowd trying to prevent ocean waves from crashing into the coast, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere.
sudo make me a sandwich
The earth is a cold place. snow and ice are relatively new things in earths history and on geologic time scales they just started ocurring. The earth has historically had higher levels of CO2, and far warmer temperatures, Did this cause any problems? No it did not.
There were more species, greater plant growth, and more bio diversity than at any other time in earths history. Sea levels were higher but there were no ice caps and far from being a climate disaster, the warmer, higher CO2 earth could support MORE life.
Contrast that with the global cooling that's occurred in the last 20 million years and it's plain to see that having entire continents like Antarctica frozen solid and under miles of ice is not a normal or healthy state for our planet.
The irony is that so called 'green' movements actually seek to keep the global thermostat set on deep freeze, which HURTS plants, limits bio diversity, and we all suffer cold winters, countless deaths caused by incliment winter weather and millions of dollars of damage every year during winter months. Entire continents of our planet are uninhabitable frozen wastelands, and the most fertile soil in the northern and southern hemispheres goes to waste under months of permafrost every year.
There is nothing "green" about climate alarmists. They want to keep the earth cold when the greatest benefit to actual plant and animal life is to let it warm back up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY
A video worth thinking about.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I mean, really, what is your issue here exactly?
If it's genuinely "why aren't we cutting down on spray from the ocean to reduce H2O evaporation", I can tell you that it'd be like trying to trim an entire football field by carefully walking around the very edge, snipping each blade of grass, then walking away. Shoreline spray is an absolutely miniscule contributor to the water evaporated from the ocean as a whole. (Although it does make aerosols, which precipitate cloud formation, so I dare say it'd be massively counterproductive.)
If it's "why aren't we looking at manipulating the hydrological cycle to offset the forcing caused by CO2", well, that is actually an option. It's just a very difficult one.
If it's "why aren't we reducing the amount of H2O we dump into the atmosphere", I'm afraid that our effect on the water cycle is essentially zero on that scale. Our own H2O usage is not a major contributor to warming.
If it's something else, enlighten me.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=methane+global+warming&hl=en&authuser=0
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=methane+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"these people" are pushing for better (more efficient, sustainable, etc) technology, not less of it. Saying that "these people" are trying to take away your cars is setting up a straw man argument, plain and simple.
Second of all... have you done the math on how long it will take the human population to decrease as a result of the declining birth rate? And compare that to how quickly the carbon footprint of the middle class is rising? Do the math... then talk.
Lastly... if climate change is allowed to continue unabated then the economic impacts will affect our levels of education and technology. Look at new orleans and new york - that's billions in economic effort spent that could have been spent on tech and education.
The "recent slowdown recent slowdown in the pace of warming" is more accurately written as "the cessation of global warming since 1998." When AGW proponents make accurate but misleading claims, it's not a surprise when the rest of us look on in doubt.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
If you talk about another country please use THEIR units of measurement first and put your unique measurement system inside the brackets.
"A rare combination of two other semi-cyclic climate modes came together to drive such large amounts of rain over Australia that the continent, on average, received 300 millimeters (12 inches) of rain more than average. ... Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
I am surprised phys.org made such a basic mistake.
Man made global warming is bunk. Get over it.
Show me one piece of legislation introduced by any government which seeks to regulate methane emissions.
sudo make me a sandwich
Why?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
There's no such thing as absolute certainty in science.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Our CO2 emissions have increased significantly these last couple decades, yet warming has been flat for 15+ years. What is the explanation? How can claim to be so certain of this causal link yet have no explanation for the last 15+ years?
Seems to me that the climate on this planet has been changing for over 4 billion years. Get over it. If it wasn't for climate change, most of Europe and North America would be under several thousand feet of ice. Suck it up. Get over it.
My issue here is that environmentalists are more concerned with their so-called "proven science" than they are with the impact on people's lives and the actual effects of their "solutions".
I am from the Central Valley in California, where the Delta Smelt has reduced the available water supply to farmers by 90%. The entire region is in the middle of a drought and bordering on dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres sit unused, covered in tumbleweeds, with the families in poverty because there is no water for them to plant anything and make a living. 5,000 lost jobs seems like a small number, until you consider the agricultural area impacted by these insane policies only has a population of ~250,000.
Then to add insult to injuries, the residents of Los Angeles still have water for their finely manicured lawns.
sudo make me a sandwich
So this has nothing at all to do with CO2, or any of the other stuff you're talking about. It's to do with a completely unrelated wildlife conservation effort that had negative consequences for your homeland.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Oh yea of little faith in California:
http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/UCCTR.cfm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/landfills.htm
All part of AB32.
I sympathise, really, but the decision of how many lost jobs a conservation effort is worth is a local policy one, and it really doesn't weigh on global climate change. If the local authorities didn't consider the possibility that a drought might hit around the same time they were reducing water availability, it sounds like they fucked up. What I can tell you is that if the climate changes significantly, you're going to be running into conflicts between conservation and human livelihood more often as people adjust to a changed water table.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
That's not the point, though. He didn't say "nobody has enacted legislation about methane", he was claiming that it was a taboo subject and completely off the table because it didn't involve the right kind of actor.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
This is exactly right, and we could do something, but hope and fairy dust (aka, international cooperation) will not do a thing. The only realistic hope of significantly reducing CO2 emissions in a relevant time frame is to develop a cost effective, viable alternative. It needs to be cheaper/better, not only slightly worse and slightly more expensive.
And the only real alternative that might work is modernized nuclear.
"people still need to travel and need electricity to warm and power their homes and computers and business."
what they DON'T need is petroleum, gas and coal. You said yourself: THEY NEED ELECTRICITY.
The electrons don't have to come out of a steam turbine.
You don't need to use so much fossil fuel. You want to spend even more on it? Fine. Go ahead. Meanwhile I'll benefit from your idiocy in better services and lower taxes because you're too dumb to change.
Thanks.
"the world's ocean levels dropped measurably."
"sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
So...which is it? Are the sea levels rising or dropping?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
For rich people, such as 90% of Americans, it costs a few thousand per year. For the uber-rich, it doesn't matter much - they just need to invest in fake solar companies rather than energy companies. It's the very poor who are deeply, even fatally affected
Take ethanol fuel, for example, which has tripled the cost of corn. Before, $10 could buy corn for three people. Now that same $10 can only feed one person. That's a big deal if you're poor, or if you're average income by global standards.
It ripples through food prices generally, of course. Most processed food that used to have corn starch is now made with wheat flour, increasing the cost of wheat. An extra $500 / year on food isn't a big deal if you're rich, making $40,000. It's a very big deal if you make $2,000 / year.
It's the same with any non-optimal production. When stuff is more costly to make, less is made, and people have less. Hardest hit are those who can't get by with any less. Any food you burn in your gas tank is food that could have fed a starving person, so in the end the cost is in lives.
Obviously that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about environmental costs. It does mean you better carefully balance them against other costs. You dont want to engage in policies which have as their primary benefit making you feel good because you're "green", at the cost of having people starve to death. Irresponsible use of CFLs are a good example of this. A CFL is great in the bathroom. For the attic or hall closet, it makes far more sense to use a 50 cent non-toxic standard bulb and give the $10 you save to United Way. You'll keep mercury and other toxins out of the environment and help someone who needs the help.
My problem is with the flawed "scientific method" used by environmentalists to justify their actions. They can't get their agenda by popular vote, so they file lawsuits and make an unelected government official enact legislation through judicial diktat. Meanwhile, these same environmentalists have 10,000 square foot mansions, fly in private planes, drive armored Hummers, etc.
sudo make me a sandwich
That's nothing to do with the science, that's a political issue.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Not even two years go, reduced rainfall, drought conditions that led to massive wildfires, were being considered "proof" of AGW. Now the increase of rain, decrease of drought, and reduced risk of wildfire means the same thing?
here's but one example out of dozens found in a microsecond of google search.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/10/australia-bush-fires.
It's like saying people's lives are shortened by a certain activity and using that as proof to regulate or ban that activity. Then when people engaged in that activity actually start living longer, still trying to hold onto what was in fact originally a moral or religiously based decision. Like drinking or MJ use.
Shades of 1920's eugenics- science as a method to justify behavioral control. Again.
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The Earth's average temperature is cooling. Sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic. These facts seem to always be ignored in favour of scare tactics to increase green taxes
Oh, hang on, we have laws against murder, so I guess I can't kill you, no matter how natural death is.
Until the government explicitly unbans living efficiently, complaining reform needs to be bottom up is absurd.
I don't drive an SUV, I drive a little Toyota, but I'd rather walk, or use quality public transportation. Unfortunately state and local governments have been exercising a war on walking since the early 1950s, implementing extremist pro-car zoning codes that force businesses to be built far away from the people they serve, and with large spaces between them so they can't be clustered.
There's no evidence that Americans have ever, as a group, wanted to be forced to drive everywhere - they've wanted the option to drive, but nobody outside of a small extreme group actually wants to be forced to drive first thing every morning, or after a hard day's work, or to and from a shop to get a gallon of milk. But with cities deliberately run down until relatively recently, and pro-car nutcases controlling the building of all new developments, that's been the effect.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1) I know nothing about this altimeter, but getting centimeter elevation accuracy from space seems like a stretch to me.
2) If 30 cm of rain fell on the entire continent of Australia, 7.7million km2, that would be about 2310 cubic km of water. If you subtract 2310 cubic km of water from the surface of the worlds oceans your ocean level would go down by 1.6 cm. Right? Using simple math? We measured that from space?
We can analyze and debate for the next 500 years and then it will be too late and we'll sit and watch while Earth becomes Venus. But hey some guys got their yachts and private jets so it was worth it right?
We have to act now. Regardless of what the oil lobby drones tell you, the problem is the release of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Either take out CO2 from the loop completely (not feasible in the short run), or reduce its release dramatically (feasible in the short run) and you are on your way to a real solution.
This means: reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fossil fuel usage, plant more trees which absorb CO2 (temporarily), improve recycling, invest in mass transit systems, prefer telecommuting, etc.
We don't need dumb stuff like carbon credits. We need to reduce emissions. Everyone cuts first 5%, then 5% the year after and so on. Fair and simple.
G&T proved nothing other than the gullibility of others like yourself and their own staggering incompetence.
Oh, by the end of the century... Pfft! I'll be dead long before that. But I feel sorry for your grandkids. World's gonna be like one great big Louisiana bayou in August.
Exactly! If I had the choice between driving to a neighborhood business and driving to the Walmart 20 miles away, I'd pick the neighborhood business, and on a nice day, I might even walk. Unfortunately, most of the local businesses are long gone.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
To suggest geo-engineering in response to climate change is like proposing trying to shoot cancer out of your body with a gun, it might work but you're far more likely to cause more problems than you solve.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
The answer is no. When we talk about how much rain y' all have, we will use measurements that mean something to us. You are welcome to do the same when y' all talk about our rain, of course.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Nope. Cannot possibly involve the sun.
Germany has a record production from Solar in July. Their renewables are doing so well that fossil fuel based electric companies are threatening to move to Turkey if they don't get aid for falling profits.
They exist. Why the hell do you think they don't?
Wind. Wave. Sun. Water. All exist.
Why do you stick your head in your ass and say "I see nothing!"?
One hundred and ninety years after the postulation of the greenhouse effect. They waited with this announcement until the effects became so enormous that they are undeniable, but also practically irreversible for the next century or so. You're doing great, science.
Any time a scientist claims near certainty, you know that (s)he's not a scientist but really a pundit or
paid lobbyist. The Scientific Method is always ready to look at new evidence and never claims
certainty, or that all the results are in. Remember that for thousands of years, everybody ( including
the most learned ) knew that the world was flat.
The area of NYC is somewhere between 650 sq.km and 950 sq.km, depending on how you measure. There are 44 European countries larger than 1000 sq.km - NYC is only larger than Andorra, Malta, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City. Even the 44th largest on the list, Luxembourg, is more than two and a half times bigger than NYC.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Not anymore, with our phones betraying our location even when 'off', speed trap and traffic cameras, and (coming soon, in the name of 'intelligent traffic) the cars' own black box and/or infotainment systems.
The rate of sea level rise is not accelerating. It has been about 3mm/year for decades.
See this: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The so called 95% confidence is NOT a scientific analysis based on statistics, like most mathematically aware readers here would assume, no Gaussian normal distribution, no t-tests, just a wild ass guess meant to scare people. It is the guess of IPCC "experts".
See : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/20/when-somebody-hits-you-with-that-new-ipcc-is-95-certain-talking-point-show-them-this/
All these predictions, all these scare stories about sea level rise...and no one mentions that the temperature of the earth has not gone up at all (despite a relentless CO2 increase) for the past 15-17 years. And the rotten climate models did not predict this, so why believe their alarmist predictions in the future?
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/14/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-the-pause-update/
You have completely missed the point. Water vapour is *not* a catalyst. If you want to use that word, then it is CO2 that is catalyst and water vapour is the amplifying feedback. The CO2 needs to be there first.
1) I know nothing about this altimeter, but getting centimeter elevation accuracy from space seems like a stretch to me.
They measured it using a complex, advanced technology that is best described by thinking of it as 'tiny graduated buckets' (graduated as in have lines on the side to help measure volume, not they just got an MBA).
2) If 30 cm of rain fell on the entire continent of Australia, 7.7million km2, that would be about 2310 cubic km of water. If you subtract 2310 cubic km of water from the surface of the worlds oceans your ocean level would go down by 1.6 cm. Right? Using simple math? We measured that from space?
I'm pretty sure it didn't all fall at once... I'm also pretty sure it's not the only factor involving the height of the ocean...
I sympathise, really, but the decision of how many lost jobs a conservation effort is worth is a local policy one, and it really doesn't weigh on global climate change. If the local authorities didn't consider the possibility that a drought might hit around the same time they were reducing water availability, it sounds like they fucked up. What I can tell you is that if the climate changes significantly, you're going to be running into conflicts between conservation and human livelihood more often as people adjust to a changed water table.
I think you've completely missed the point of what happened there, and it provides some important lessons that relate directly to climate change. The marketing around the science is much more mature around climate change, but it works the same.
See, this started when scientists raised the alarm about a noticeable drop in the population of the delta smelt in the bay area and tributaries. Environmental groups began a lawsuit, and as usual were able to leverage support from the EPA. The delta smelt is not really an important species by itself. But the population reduction is a signal of an environmental issue. The cause, really, was pollution from agricultural run-off from all the chemicals used on the corporate farmland in the water shed. But since Monsanto has so much influence with Washington bureaucrats, that issue was dismissed. You can find some decent description of the real issues online.
Instead, the EPA came up with a plan to treat the symptom, pointed to the aquifers and irrigation equipment pulling water from the rivers for the San Joaquin valley. And they cut off the water. That resulted in the death of vast acres of rich farmland, laid off workers, family farms going bankrupt, and the only benefit is to temporarily treat a symptom of an issue.
In appeal, the judge that looked at all the evidence wrote that “cutting water exports to California cities and farms is ‘arbitrary’ and ‘capricious.’” But by that time (3 years later), the damage was done and the once-productive farmland was mostly desert.
So this issue, just like climate change, started with some good science, but proceeded into the mainstream with greedy corporations and naive environmental groups calling for policy changes that hurt working people and empower the wealthy and well-connected. You have been warned.
Catcha: Slavery
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
I guess I don't understand why this needs to be explained. The situations are not equivalent: Doing something harmful (to your body, to your car, to your environment) can be reasonably stopped without much concern that the results would be catastrophic. If you are doing something you know is harmful and are trying to mitigate the effects of it, then it's reasonable to consider the relative harm of the original act versus the mitigation.
Yes, the costs associated with reducing CO2 production should be considered, but there is no reason to think that not producing CO2 in itself would be catastrophic, since that's what the status quo was for thousands of years.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" -- Benjamin Franklin.
The people / companies / governments that are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are 'doing something' and they have not weighed the pros and cons carefully. Not producing CO2 is the default, it's been the case for human history; rapidly changing atmospheric composition is recent and people that want to do that, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, are the religious nuts.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
Humans are changing the atmosphere, and that change is affecting the climate, the results have already not been good and are expected to become worse. That's the unintended consequence. At this point, I think the people that want to continue doing it are the ones that have to justify themselves, not the 'hysterical people' who want them to stop.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
That's because it wouldn't affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
The key difference is that if you put extra CO2 into the atmosphere it just stays there for a long period of time.
But if you put extra water vapor into the atmosphere, it pretty quickly condenses right back out.
They sound like a broken record, or a scratched CD. Clearly they are in the pocket of the filthy rich, and will say whatever they are told.
Wait, are you *seriously* arguing that we turn the climate back a couple hundred million years? Do you realize that most of the plants and animals we have today won't survive in a climate that warm?
You also conveniently forget that most species don't have the luxury of migrating to the poles over the span of a few decades. Ecosystems can't simply pick themselves up, get on a bus, and drive away from the equator.
I'm surprised no one has posted a rebuttal to your little missive as it's one of the dumbest I've read on /. in a long time.
United States MINIMUM wage, what high school students earn, is far higher than average adult income in the rest of the world.
If you make $200 per week , you are richer than 86% of people. So yes, given that US welfare recipents have more than most workers, Americans are rich -virtually all of us. Not as rich as we were in the 80s and early 90s, but much better off than most.
If you're a nerd on Slashdot, your total gross income including benefits is probably over $31K. Is so, congratulations - you're a 1%er.
Either you have proof or you don't know.
Science by acclamation...
Mundus Vult Decipi
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
It doesn't rain where he lives so he is unable to undestand that the atmospheric water vapour is in equilibrium with the oceans.
(by the way Sparticus old chap this means that to reduce the green house effect due to water vapour you'll have to drain the oceans. Have fun).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Huh?
He said:
Show me one piece of legislation introduced by any government which seeks to regulate methane emissions.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Indeed, in the eye of the beholder. The vast majority of people would say that a guy who can just sit around smoking weed with no worries about food, water, shelter, or basic medicine is rich indeed. Some Americans are so incredibly spoiled. They sit around complaining in their air conditioned homes, having no idea what daily life is like picking coffee in 100 heat with 80% humidity, or 80 hours in a Chinese factory, or living with the explosions of war munitions around you daily.
The eye of the beholder is closed.
New York city IS an expensive place to live. I wonder why so many people choose to go there. What does it have that's worth giving up so much that your income could otherwise buy? For me, I'm happy with my $95K three-bedroom house in Texas. Apparently millions of people find something in NYC that's incredibly awesome, though.
..the lady doth protest too much...
Sure. Thing is, we can't do anything directly about H2O. The amount in the atmosphere is going to be pretty well fixed. If we put more in, there'll be more rain. If we take some out, there'll be more evaporation.* Since the amount in the atmosphere depends on temperature, it will simply reinforce other warming and cooling effects. In particular, with more CO2 in the air, things will warm up and we'll have more H2O in the air, and it'll warm up more. With less CO2 in the air, less H2O, etc.
*Oversimplification. Not to be considered absolutely correct in all details, but generally true.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You do realize not every environmentalist* is Al Gore, you know?
*I use that term loosely.
It's kind of ridiculous, isn't it. Once you include gas taxes, car taxes, etc. the national average is 45% in assorted taxes, so I bet NY is 65%.
Come on down, there are plenty of jobs, etc. Well, if you WANT a job building cool shit, doing cloning, computer tech, etc. come on down. If you want to sit around smoking weed all day and complaining that it's not making you rich, please stay on the coasts.
When scientists are certain, they are often wrong. In this case, they are certain they can get more research dollars with pronouncements like this. They are probably right about that.
Honestly, why?
Earth becoming difficult or impossible for humans to inhabit is the the natural world's response to a species that's multiplied far beyond a reasonable quantity and treated its environment with calloused recklessness for generations. We desperately need this trauma. Rather than creating and aggravating adversarial relationships and bitching about some risqué television performance, we will be forced to either cooperate for survival or die trying.
By the way, anyone who believes we haven't already gone past the tipping point is delusional. This change is coming and it will hurt all us privileged folks. A lot. It's okay to go on complaining about your bad politics and lousy entertainment because the problem will inevitably solve itself.